Water fluoridation is so thoroughly established as safe and the physiological effects are so well understood that it is hard to find recent reputable papers even commenting on it.

I will donate $1000 to a charity of your choice if you can provide a peer reviewed article in a reputable journal that suggests it is suspected to be unsafe at recommended levels.

Criteria: must be a full research or systematic review paper (not an editorial or opinion), published in a recognized scientific journal, and include a DOI. I’ll verify the paper and post the donation receipt publicly.

[–] MHLoppy2@aussie.zone 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children)

Imo you were too vague in your conditions.

https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.5542

This systemic review and meta-analysis includes this (weak!!) negative health result even at <=1.5mg/L fluoride/water (1.5mg/L being the upper limit for drinking water that the WHO recommends according to many papers including this paper, but which annoyingly doesn't seem to have an up-to-date page on the WHO website to confirm with).

Sixty-four studies reported inverse associations between fluoride exposure measures and children’s IQ. Analysis of 59 studies with group-level measures of fluoride in drinking water, dental fluorosis, or other measures of fluoride exposure (47 high risk of bias, 12 low risk of bias; n = 20 932 children) showed an inverse association between fluoride exposure and IQ (pooled SMD, −0.45; 95% CI, −0.57 to −0.33; P < .001). In 31 studies reporting fluoride measured in drinking water, a dose-response association was found between exposed and reference groups (SMD, −0.15; 95% CI, −0.20 to −0.11; P < .001), and associations remained inverse when exposed groups were restricted to less than 4 mg/L and less than 2 mg/L; however, the association was null at less than 1.5 mg/L. In analyses restricted to low risk-of-bias studies, the association remained inverse when exposure was restricted to less than 4 mg/L, less than 2 mg/L, and less than 1.5 mg/L fluoride in drinking water. (emphasis added)

I would personally consider this to qualify, though I will understand if you want to be more strict. I'm also not the person you were replying to lol.

edit: This one is a bit less ambiguous, though it's not open access https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.05.645 (the language they use also makes it sound like they have an agenda, but I know nothing about the authors)

Fluoride improves tooth structure, preventing inflammation and deterioration. Water fluoridation should not exceed 1.0 mg/L to protect dental plaque and public hygiene [35], [36]. Fluorosis affects teeth once 1.0 mg/L is surpassed. This condition causes tooth stains and cavities.

Which I think qualifies as "suggests it is suspected to be unsafe at recommended levels" if you allow the recommend level to be "some nebulous amount up to 1.5mg/L" and for "unsafe" to be "causes or is associated with negative health effects".

[–] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Dammit, I did a quick literature search first too.

If I wanted I could say I meant Australian recommended levels which have never been more than 1mg/L but I didn't specify. WHO recommendations are <=1.5mg/L.

Also I will stand by my point as

There were limited data and uncertainty in the dose-response association between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ when fluoride exposure was estimated by drinking water alone at concentrations less than 1.5 mg/L.

The study is inconclusive and suggestive at those lower dose ranges and not relevant to Australia as our standards recommend even lower levels, but it does "suggest" which was my criteria. Possibly the WHO ought to adopt something closer to the western world standard of around 0.7mg/L

Probably this is what @Tenderizer is referencing and we all owe them an apology.

Name your charity @MHLoppy2

[–] MHLoppy2@aussie.zone 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I nominate the unregistered charity of @Joshi@slrpnk.net who makes efforts to promote health education and foster civil discussion in online spaces.

Tenderizer may have a different view, but for me personally don't worry about losing the money due to a random internet discussion. If you would like to use your money to do some good in the world, I don't want that to be conditional on who spent more time researching a random topic.

I would, however, like to re-iterate this quote:

The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance—it is the illusion of knowledge.

And remind everyone that at any given time we know approximately nothing about anything so be cautious about being overconfident in what you think you know!

[–] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Filling the Gap was born from a simple but powerful idea shared between friends over coffee: to help address the critical shortage of dental care. What started as a grassroots initiative quickly grew into a meaningful movement.

[–] MHLoppy2@aussie.zone 3 points 2 days ago

omg you madlad

[–] coaxil@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago

Hats off to you!!! 👏

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)